Roger Hicks is a well known photographic writer, author of The
Rangefinder Book, over three dozen other photographic books, and a frequent
contributor to Shutterbug and Amateur Photographer. Unusually in today's
photographic world, most of his camera reviews are film cameras, especially
rangefinders. See www.rogerandfrances.com
for further background (Frances is his wife Frances Schultz, acknowledged
darkroom addict and fellow Shutterbug contributor) .

When I first started out taking photographs (1974), I wanted to shoot motor sports - specifically motorcycle speedway at Belle Vue in my native Manchester.

My first "long" lens was a "Prinzflex" 300mm with a maximum aperture of about f5.6 or f6.3. This was all I could afford at the time. The split screen went black when trying to focus in low light and the lens barrell / focusing mechanism wasn't fastened together properly.

Consequently, despite up-rating 400 ISO film to 1600, I never managed to get a sharp image of any sort. I think I eventually gave the lens away when I managed to afford an upgrade to an OM system. I haven't had what I would call a "bad" lens since as most lenses have at least some redeeming or interesting features.

What is a bad lens?
Is the lensbabys a bad lens?
To my opinion the photographer makes a choice for a certain picture. If the picture does not work out well then it's easy to blame the equipment.
If you know your equipment well enough then you know what the result will be.
From the other hand if the lens falls apart then you probably got a bad copy.

I might suggest that he who maintains a Version III lens (or an M9 in the M8 vs M9 discussion) will enhance his photography significantly must believe (whether there's any truth to it or evidence to support it) that his photographic skill exceeds the capabilities of his gear and is therefore constrained by it.

At one time I drank a pitcher of that Kool-Aid and ended up buying a stable of ASPH lenses (21, 35 (f/2 and f/1.4), 90 and 135-APO). I no longer own any of them, and my only regret in not keeping them involves my lack of clairvoyance in re how much they are now worth in resale. Some would say I must lack photographic skill and discernment not to have appreciated the optical enhancements, but I'm willing to take that insult lying down.

To quote the old Southern Baptist preachers, "YA GOTTA HAVE FAITH, Dearly Beloved."

Surely the only bad lens is the one that introduces some defect in your photo that you did not intend? Putting aside damaged or faulty lenses (and even they might be put to good effect if the defect is known) then a lens forms an image. If that image agrees with your intentions, it's not a bad lens.

If you want sharp and get blurred or the lens has flare, aberrations etc that you didn't expect or intend, yes it's a bad lens in the sense that it spoiled the photo you intended to take. That still might make it a bad choice on your part rather than bad lens. After all, the perfect lens does not exist; it behoves the user to know the faults.

One of my favorite photos was taken with my least favorite lens, primarily because it was on my camera as the scene presented itself. To be at the right place in the right time with good enough gear is much more important than browsing reviews when you should be out shooting.

One of my favorite photos was taken with my least favorite lens, primarily because it was on my camera as the scene presented itself. To be at the right place in the right time with good enough gear is much more important than browsing reviews when you should be out shooting.

I find the fetish for Leica lenses a complete hoot. Guys taking pictures of flowers, cats and "street photography" i.e. anonymous people walking down the street, seem to be the usual suspects expounding upon the necessity of having the best "glass".

I like having a few 'bad' lenses laying around. Take one shot with the state of the art lens and then another with the vignetting, soft focusing in the corner, poorly corrected for color lens and then pick the one you like. I liked this the best of two lenses (not a Holga):

as someone else commented also, first zooms from -70/80's are usually pretty bad, both build (first use of plastics) and IQ, as CAD was still doing its baby steps, and human limits for manual calculations. guess lack of AF-motors too, zooms benefit this more than primes IMO.

other group that has plenty of dogs are FSU-lenses. am "aware" that with luck J3 can be equal or better than Leica ASPH, according to some

Not really, except by sample. In later USSR and early Russian years production quality often was a severe issue, to the point that the majority of lenses was broken right out of factory, but they are generally sane designs - which is more than can be said about much of the lenses sold by Hanimex and similar bottom feeders...

other group that has plenty of dogs are FSU-lenses. am "aware" that with luck J3 can be equal or better than Leica ASPH, according to some

I have to disagree. Certainly the later lenses had very poor QC but that relates more to poor fit and finish than optical defects. I have 28 (I think) FSU lenses, from which there is one that requires re-shimming. Assuming mine to be a random sample, that's not a bad rate! Furthermore, in mitigation the one that needs shimming is a pre-war FED lens that seems not to be matched to its original body any longer.

The biggest problem with FSU lenses is the kitchen-table bodging that many have suffered in their lives. Certainly, there appear to be some that may have come from the factory with defects but they are not that common. It's a little bit harsh to judge lenses that have somewhere around half a century of unknown provenance, FSU or not.

I don't know about least favourite lens but I've 3 favourites photos of my son on the wall at home, that I printed myself in the darkroom on FB paper. All taken on a 50 1.8 AIS Nikkor that cost me £59 used. 'Nuf said.
(I've not had a darkroom since Nov'09 (house move - work in progress) so we'll see what the Summicron ones print up like - eventually)

Very true, but don't discount bad lenses. Micheal Kenna uses a Holga at times and his Monecito series is great. Someone posted a Mr Fawlty talk about creativity recently, the message was OPEN YOUR MIND.

I don't move in the circles of the normally touted great lenses by Leica, Zeiss, or others, except for a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 T*, and some might argue if it is a Zeiss or not. But in SLR primes, I have and use Yashinons and Fujinons. Are they as good as your Leica lenses? I don't know, but they are pretty good, and certainly good enough for me. And I haven't seen Other people using lenses that are better than my Fujinons.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.